“Double the state's offshore wind and solar targets and quadruple energy storage deployment.”
Sources (click to view full provenance)
Propose an edit to this promise's details
Suggest a sourced correction to the promise text, topic, scope, significance, or dates. Changing the promise text requires a source. Your suggestion is reviewed before it changes the record.
Sign in and complete the Contributor Agreement to propose an edit.
Assessments
evidence-backed verdictsThese are sourced verdicts from fact-checkers or community evidence reviews — not opinions.
Upheld as PARTIAL after independently fetching all four cited sources; every quote appears verbatim and each supports the composite outcome. This is a three-part promise (double offshore wind target, double solar target, quadruple energy storage). STORAGE: Verified via Foley Hoag — Section 83E of the Nov. 2024 Clean Energy Act directs utilities to contract ~5,000 MW of storage by July 31, 2030 (up from the prior 1,000 MWh 2018 target), and Utility Dive confirms a separate 5 GW storage target under her later executive order — an over-delivery on the quadruple pledge, written into law by her administration. SOLAR: Utility Dive confirms 4 GW of new in-state solar (within a 10 GW-by-2035 new-resources goal), advancing but not clearly doubling the original pledge. OFFSHORE WIND: CommonWealth Beacon confirms the statutory 5,600 MW target was NOT doubled — the Healey administration in fact backed delaying that requirement from 2027 to 2029 amid federal headwinds and contract talks slipping into 2026; notably the Utility Dive EO makes no mention of doubling offshore wind, pivoting emphasis to solar/storage/demand-reduction. WBUR (a legitimate news review of her promises) independently marks the pledge "incomplete." Because she led and over-delivered on storage and advanced solar but failed to (and partly retreated from) doubling the offshore wind target, PARTIAL is the accurate composite — not FULL (offshore wind prong unmet) and not CHAMPIONED (a full prong was walked back).
Your opinion on this assessment(clearly labeled opinion)
Sign in to vote.
Discussion
community opinionsComments are user opinions — not verdicts. They do not affect the official assessment.
Sign in to join the discussion.
Propose a correction
community accountabilitySee an error in the promise text, status, significance, or missing source? Submit a sourced correction — a reviewer will evaluate and apply it if accurate. Your submission must cite evidence; unsourced changes are not accepted.
Sign in or create an account to propose a correction.
Debate
sourced community argumentsThese are sourced community arguments — not StumpWatch assessments. Each cites a source and is community-contributed; it does not change the official status or rating above.
No arguments yet
Be the first to weigh in. Every argument cites a source and is reviewed before it publishes. Create an account to add one and help keep this promise honest.
Add a sourced argument
Cite a source for your point. Submissions are held for reviewer approval before they appear.
Sign in or create an account to add an argument.